Justin Kyle Phelps, 26, who was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor in 2011, now faces federal charges. (Photo: Knoxville Police Department)

A 26-year-old man who went to a Knox County home earlier this month with plans to meet a 13-year-old girl for sex found the girl’s father, who was armed with a gun, waiting for him instead.

According to the March 13 criminal complaint, Justin Kyle Phelps, 26, used fake Facebook profiles of two different teenagers to persuade the girl to agree to engage in sexual acts with him and disclose her address so he could meet her for said acts.

Authorities learned that in December the girl received a Facebook friend request from a girl named “Vicky,” who claimed to also be a 13-year-old girl with a mutual interest in modeling. However, authorities believe “Vicky” was a fake profile created by Phelps.

While the conversations between “Vicky” and the young girl appeared to start off as innocent, “Vicky” later pushed the conversations to the topic of sex, with “Vicky” offering to introduce the girl to a teenage boy who she said would help “teach her” about oral sex. “Vicky” also sent supposed photos of herself in questionable poses to the young girl, asking her to recreate the same photos of herself and share them with “Vicky.”

Some time later, the girl received another friend request from “Justin Meh,” who claimed to be a 17-year-old boy and a friend of “Vicky.” Authorities believe this profile was also created by Phelps.

Over the next two months, “Vicky” and “Justin” messaged the girl and talked frequently about oral sex. The two tried to convince the girl to share nude photos of herself and eventually persuaded her to disclose her address so that “Justin” could meet her.

In February, “Justin” made arrangements to come to the girl’s house, but upon his arrival the family dog began to bark, alerting the girl’s mother that something was awry. When the mother entered the girl’s bedroom to check on her, she saw what she described as a “very thin male” attempting to climb through the bedroom window. The male, believed to be Phelps, fled from the scene after seeing the girl’s mother.

A search of the area by local law enforcement turned up nothing. However, after the incident, the girl confessed to her parents about the conversations she had with “Vicky” and “Justin.”

The girl’s parents then got on Facebook, pretended to be their daughter, and invited “Justin” to come back over. It was when Phelps, pretending to be “Justin,” returned to the girl’s house that he was met with the girl’s father holding a gun.

Phelps fled from the home once again, unharmed, but the Knoxville Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force became involved in the investigation. According to Agent Chris L. Jones, who filed the criminal complaint against Phelps, the Task Force created a fake profile, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl who promised oral sex with Phelps. When Phelps showed up at the appointed meeting place, he was apprehended by authorities.

During the investigation, the Task Force learned Phelps was a registered sex offender previously convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor and according to the criminal complaint, which did not elaborate, a search of Phelps’ phone showed evidence of other potential victims.

Try him, and Hang him. Publicly.
These are the people we want to accept into the women’s restrooms.. all they have to do is claim to “feel” like a female.

Omer Woodruff

Parents need to watch their kids internet habits . And parents need to talk to their kids more . Too many single parent homes come with wide open doors to trouble . Today your kids future can be destroyed by aids and other diseases . If not killed . Talk with your kids or take a chance of losing them forever .

Mike in Illinois

Tie rope to hand. Tie rope to other hand. Tie rope to foot. Tie rope to other foot. Attack all four ropes to four different saddles. Light firecrackers. Untie ropes. Take horses home for a nice bath, a nice brush and an extra helping of grain.

Do it the first time this demonic sickness makes itself known and there is no registering and no fakebook account making required..

Doesn’t the perp look like an #antifa cuck who attends anti-Trump rallies? It makes sense that the libtards want to hide the #pizzagate pedophile scandal that is linked to Hitlery Clinton adviser John Podesta.

Mike in Illinois

A buddy of mine once said, man o man you can just tell an Obamavoter by lookin at em. (This was in a conversation we were having about white guilt liberal lefties). And he was right. It is well beyond a stereotype, it is amazing how they just have the same characteristics.

J. Henry

When I lived in Iowa, one fall I worked for a hog farmer ” cutting ” what were called feeder pigs. We were castrating the 40 lbs pigs. I held them by the back legs and he took the razor… it was done in 5 seconds. So with that in mind I say we can fix this guy up real fast.

Cal S.

Kids, this is how we get charged with premeditated murder and you get sent off to child services for us to never see again. Isn’t technology great?

Folks, unless you’re in mortal danger, you can’t do stuff like this. I get the parental instinct, but for the good of your child and family, just alert the authorities and let Bubba cellmate take care of it for you.

Mike in Illinois

Yeah, don’t defend your kids….just leave that to the professionals…..because they are just doing a ggggrreeeaaaat job, huh?

Take a look – parents CAN “do stuff like this” – and a funny thing happens when they do so……there is actually remedy, positive outcome remedy.

So,yes, yes we CAN!

Cal S.

No, no you still can’t. They had his Facebook aliases, and the messages as proof.

I’m not interested in the emotional argument, please give me a legal code, from any state, that says it’s cool to lure someone to your home under false pretenses and then commit a felony. I’ll stand corrected.

Mike in Illinois

It ain’t a felony to defend your own home and your own kids. Did ya miss the part about him climbing in the window? Go ahead, give me code that rises above and beyond the Supreme Law of the land. You try to paint the father as the one luring….when the ALREADY CONVICTED SEXUAL PREDATOR was the one luring the minor girl.

Call the cops , right now, and tell them that some guy on the internet is saying things to your daughter online. You will get told to turn off your daughters computer and limit her access. They will blame the girl and the family, JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING. Imagine that.

See the irony there? You are saying the police should handle it – when right there in front of your eyes they already DID “handle it’. Their way of doing so actually accomplished what? Oh yeah, a KNOWN predator let OUT on the street to DO IT AGAIN!

Maybe that is why you want to point the blame at the intended victim….so nobody talks about the blatantly obvious FAILURE the first time he was CAUGHT and convicted. SO tell me genius, how many girsl have to be raped this way before you finally admit the real villain here is the sexual predator? Three? Five? How many times is one to be let out after violating the innocence of the minor children? How much is enough, how many are “acceptable” to you, you know, do you will finally blame THEM instead of those acting in self defense against the rapists? Hmm? Give me number.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Cal S.

Bravo for the bravado!

I get it, now you’ve got to double-down to avoid admitting you utterly missed my point the first time around and that there is no codified law that justifies what these parents did by luring him back to their house. I get it.

Now get me. I told you I had no use for emotional arguments. We’re talking about what DID happen, not what SHOULD have happened. What DID happen is the parents “missed” their golden opportunity to deal with the young pervert the way you insist they should have when they went to investigate the disturbance sans firearms. After that, their daughter was out of immediate danger, they had no cause to fear for her/their lives and/or great/grave bodily harm. He was no longer on their property, and he wasn’t in their house. The justification for lethal force is clear, and the girl’s parents no longer had it. If they’d killed that idiot after luring him back, no matter how bad his past sins had been, no stand-your-ground or castle doctrine could have saved them from charges.

That’s the facts.

Sandy Beachman

“Cal S………” Would that be California, South?

Cal S.

Nope, just my nickname. Good thought, though.

Mike in Illinois

Codified law – Second Amendment, applied as enforceable. See that yet?
What DID happen – a convicted sexual predator climbed in the window of a 13 year old girl. Ignore it all you like, try to distract people all you like, none of your antics change what, ahem, “did happen” ahem. As much as YOU wish that YOU get to define who gets to be scared of what when, in terms of great bodily harm or death, the truth is that YOU don’t get to decide that FOR anyone else. People have the right to decide that for themselves.

GO ahead, try to replace the right of self defense with castle doctrine or stand your ground LESSER LAW that is IN CONFLICT WITH the RIGHT enumerated. Go ahead, keep right on ADMITTING that you seek to SUPPLANT indicisual RIGHTS in order to what you jsut said – ABSOLVE THE KNOWN AND CONVICTED CRIMINAL. Maybe you don’t see that you admit this, but there it is right there in your own words….. “no matter how bad his past sins had been”. Yeah uh huh, sins. Riiight. You can’t even admit they were CRIMES!

Here is the fact. The days of pretending that the Second Amendment “doesn’t apply” are indeed over. Criminals, and those who seek to absolve them by blaming their victims, would serve themselves well to recognize that.

Cal S.

Oh, doubling down like it’s your job! I admire commitment.

Let me clarify in as many mono-syllabic terms as possible so even you can understand:
1) Killed while climbing in the window = probably justified homicide.
2) Lured back to house & threatened with a firearm = felony menacing.

If the father had shot the guy the second time, he’d be facing murder charges regardless of emotional arguments or feelings, and that’s that. To me, that makes insistence otherwise very strange indeed.

QED

GameOgre

Look, another GoogleU lawyer who has no idea what he is talking about.

Cal S.

Or just some bloke that’s taken concealed carry class and has to know the lethal force justification laws for my state. Pretty sure luring someone to my house is a no-no, but if you’ve got a law that says otherwise, I’m all ears.

The parents did the wrong thing! They should’ve shot the perp dead & never bothered the police. Why waste taxpayer dollars on ‘gubment employees when ammo is much cheaper?

GameOgre

Look everybody! He took a CWP class!!!
Totally qualifies you as knowledgeable on the legalities of the situation.
Like I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Cal S.

Wow, late to the party, I see. Look, pal, winning this is as easy as giving me a statute number that says it’s legal in that family’s state to threaten lethal force after luring someone onto your property. Your bluster doesn’t hide your own ignorance of the law.

Give me a law, just one, that stipulates the above and I’ll concede the point. Otherwise, you are just the pot calling the kettle black.

GameOgre

Yeah, some of us have other things to do than pretend to be lawyers on the internet.
A registered sex offender (RSO) having contact with a minor is committing a crime, and as such it meets all criteria for castle doctrine in Tennessee. This “luring” you keep referring to is not a factor, as the dude is serially committing yet more crimes by contacting the underage daughter via the internet (yet another no-no when you’re a RSO.
The parent is well within their right to attempt to detain a criminal that has now tried to enter their residence twice, with a firearm. We can verify this not only with the Tennessee castle doctrine statute and common sense, but by the fact that they were not charged with a crime.
/mic drop

Cal S.

Ah, the old ‘my life is more important’ rebuttal. Never heard it before. But, glad you’re able to join us sooner this time around.

Good to know. Again, though, what you cite perfectly covers their rights when he showed up the first time. I conceded that long ago. You haven’t provided a statute that covers the luring as has been my contention all along. The reason they’re not facing charges is because all they’d charge them with now is menacing. It’s easily overlooked in the grand scheme of things.

The best way to deconstruct your reasoning is to change the crime to drug dealing. If your kid were buying drugs, would you be legally in your rights to set up a sale with the supplier using your kid’s phone and then do the same? I don’t believe so.

GameOgre

Because the “luring” you keep mentioning isn’t illegal you nitwit. Luring actually has a legal definition and this ain’t it.
You can keep being delusional all you want but the fact is you’re wrong. The cops say you’re wrong, the lawyers say your wrong, anyone with common sense says you’re wrong, even the law says you’re wrong.
Go ahead and have the last word, I’ve proven my point and I’m done with you.

Cal S.

Well, that took you all of a week to get your law degree from GoogleU, too. Congrats!

Since you claim that no lawyer or police agree with me, but without evidence, then I shall provide anecdotal evidence to support my assertions.

1) In the USCCA magazine a few years ago was the story of a man who faced murder charges in a very similar situation. I do not recall the state of residence. There were some burglaries around the neighborhood, and a homeowner decided that he was going to do something about it. Went so far as to tell his neighbors that “I’m mad enough to kill someone!” He left his garage door open one night, put one of his wife’s purses in plain sight, and otherwise steeled himself for the expected confrontation. After hearing some noise in his garage, he went outside, and promptly discharged his shotgun thrice into the dark interior of his garage before calling police. They found the body of a German exchange student in the garage, and they arrested the homeowner for murder. It seems the fact that he’d been ‘lured’ and the whole thing planned out ahead of time stuck in the craw of most reasonable people…including the DA and the jury. That homeowner is now serving hard time.

2) Whether from the USCCA magazine or online pro-gun publication, I cannot recall is a similar story of a man who had been the victim of two burglaries. After the second one, he set up alarms, cameras, took the day off from work, and prepared an ambush location in his basement. Next time the teenage boy and girl came in (he’d left the doors unlocked), he shot them dead, covered their bodies, and didn’t inform police until the neighbor he bragged about it to called on him a day after the incident. You guessed it, he’s serving time for murder too.

Seems that premeditated luring and use of lethal force is only good for turning a “Castle Doctrine” defense into a murder charge regardless of the perp’s crimes. There you go, it would seem like your brand of ‘common sense’ gets people thrown in jail. I’m just trying to keep y’all out of the clinker, but you guys do what you want to.

White Bear

As a retired cop with over 30 years of service, I’m telling you that if you wait for the “authorities” to protect you there’s a very high probability that you’ll regret it.

If someone is climbing through my window he’ll die in that window.

Cal S.

Oh, yeah? So it’s cool to lure an alleged trespasser to my house under false pretenses and then potentially kill them after menacing them with a firearm? Sweet! I’ve got some people to call…

Seriously, though, it seems like we’ve got some people with seriously poor reading comprehension skills. I was clearly referring to the luring of the suspect back to the premises and the ensuing armed confrontation. In my state, if a lethal force situation had developed, the father would have faced charges.

illegal_American

Luring him in is not “cool”. Blowing him away while he climbs through a child’s window, very cool.

Cal S.

Indeed. And that’s not what I was referring to originally. Except everyone decided I was and won’t admit otherwise.

Ron Peregrim

Sometimes even if it’s wrong you have to be your own copy if you want it done .

Cal S.

You know, if you’re ever in a self-defense situation that looks even a tad bit sketch, you’re gonna regret that comment when it shows up in evidence. Just sayin’.

Again, it was 100% legally wrong. They had all the evidence and he was out of their hair for the time being. If they’d played their hand properly, the next time they saw him would have been in the courtroom.

Independence911

He is right. It’s the law and gun owners need to understand that law. An emotional reaction may make a bad situation worse. Be cold and calculating – prosecuting a child predator and allowing them to be alongside others in an environment where they will be the prey… now that is the type of vengeance that is served iced cold. We do need to recognize the recidivism rate is north of 95% for sexual predators- so at what point are we going to say – we don’t let you back in society -EVER??? I hate new laws – but this needs addressed.

White Bear

Great job by the family dog and the parents, although I have to say that if this had been my daughter and my house, he wouldn’t have “fled from the home once again, unharmed”.

Dead sex offenders never create any more victims. He had prior convictions; too bad he wasn’t killed when committing those offenses.

illegal_American

He’ll be popular in the slammer.

snufflupagus

More like he would’ve “fallen down the stairs trying to escape”

27 times

White Bear

I spent my career as a cop, and you’d be amazed at how clumsy child sexual predators can be. They’ll fall over or down anything, and they’ll almost always resist arrest.

Their deviant behavior must affect their inner ear, throwing their balance WAY off:).

Yeah, the child molester died after he fell off the roof twice while trying to escape from DADD (Dad’s Against Daughters Dating).

White Bear

My jib and I thank you;).

snufflupagus

The anti-gun cabal would have rather seen this 13-year-old girl violated, then that her father would’ve had a firearm to protect her.
THIS is the fundamental difference between the pro-and anti-gun lobbies.